Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Agile Methods Experience Report by Andrew Rendell, Valtech
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Agile Methods Experience Report by Andrew Rendell, Valtech


Published on

This experience report, by a project’s technical architect, details the adoption of Agile methods across several teams after one high profile success. The organisation had a long history of waterfall …

This experience report, by a project’s technical architect, details the adoption of Agile methods across several teams after one high profile success. The organisation had a long history of waterfall development and a clearly defined remit for technical architects. Years of refinement had led to a set of techniques which contradicted many of the ideals held by Agile practitioners. The author’s challenge was to maintain agility and fulfill responsibilities inherited from waterfall processes without reverting to the conventional practices that ultimately lead to the architect’s ivory tower.

Published in: Technology, Business

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Descending from the ArchitectsIvory TowerWhitepaperAndrew RendellPrincipal ConsultantValtech UKValtech © 2011
  • 2. Table of Content Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 31. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 42. Initial Agile adoption............................................................................................................. 53. The post lauch doubt and scaling up ................................................................................... 54. Redefining the Approach ..................................................................................................... 64.1. Reflecting on code structure ................................................................................................ 74.2. Providing direction and rigorous checkpoints ....................................................................... 84.3. Structuring the aplication architecture to promote good governance .................................... 94.4. Key measurement tool: testing .......................................................................................... 104.5. Documentation that is ‘good enough’ ................................................................................. 114.6. Delegation ......................................................................................................................... 125. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 146. References ........................................................................................................................ 147. Valtech Contact Details ..................................................................................................... 15 2
  • 3. AbstractThis experience report, by a project’s technical architect, details the adoption of Agile methodsacross several teams after one high profile success. The organization had a long history ofwaterfall development and a clearly defined remit for technical architects. Years of refinementhad led to a set of techniques which contradicted many of the ideals held by Agile practitioners.The author’s challenge was to maintain agility and fulfill responsibilities inherited from waterfallprocesses without reverting to the conventional practices that ultimately lead to the architect’sivory tower. 3
  • 4. 1. IntroductionThe T-Mobile International Mobile Portals and Content Delivery Group had developed a set ofexpectations around the responsibilities of a role which would be widely recognized as aTechnical Architect. The exact remit of a technical architect is subject tomuch debate and differs widely between organizations and even projects. This report does notaim to produce a definition for the technical architect, Agile or otherwise, but in the context of thisparticular client engagement the role involved having: a wide remit over the implementationsdelivered by several different teams; end to end technical responsibility; delivery of a consistentlyefficient implementation that is fit for purpose.In organizations where a waterfall process is in place it has been the authors experience that thetechnical architect is unlikely to be involved in the hands on aspects of delivering solutions. Theirrole is often very closely coupled with design documentation.Often the delivery process has been structured to include quality gates where the deliverable forthe next stage is documented and then reviewed by the technical architect. The review of designdocumentation is the primary tool available to the architect. This had been the case at T-Mobile.The requirement to design, document and review everything upfront as a way to reduce risk isone that is obviously eschewed by the Agile movement as being ineffective and providing only anillusion of control.In addition, making a documentation quality gate the mechanism by which the technical architectmanages the implementation paradoxically reduces their effectiveness by:  Isolating them from the technical implementation for which they are supposedly responsible.  Reducing their technical ability by taking them away from the technology that made them great candidates for the role in the first place.  Supporting the fallacy that the technical architect is the all-knowing center of the technical universe.Many technical architects on waterfall projects do an excellent job. The authors opinion is thatthis is achieved in spite of rather than because of the design review quality gates. Personalexperience is that many technical architects feel disenfranchised because their key skills honedthrough many years of education and hard project work are no longer put to good use.Conversely, many developers perceive the technical architect as being somebody they rarelyinteract with, who has little idea of how the software is being put together. In many teams theauthor has observed the architect as being regarded as at best a poorly informed individual,dabbling at the periphery and at worst, a dangerous impediment to progress whose attentionmust be avoided at all costs. 4
  • 5. Technical architect is usually a logical career progression for developers. The organizationsneed for an individual to fulfill the responsibilities of the architect has not diminished [1] even ifthe tools employed in the past have sometimes failed to add value. The challenge is: how can theresponsibilities of a technical architect be fulfilled without introducing practices which reduce theagility, and therefore the effectiveness, of the team? Valtech has demonstrated that by changingthe techniques and attitudes of the architect it is possible to meet this goal. This experiencereport details practices employed by a technical architect and his team across a body of workconsisting of several projects. These practices are evaluated in retrospect to measure theireffectiveness.2. Initial Agile adoptionIn the summer of 2007 a marketing initiative for a new mobile portal was proposed. The adagenecessity is the mother of all invention applied to this project. The high profile and reduced time-scales (twelve weeks rather than six months from initiation to go-live) meant that light-weighttechnologies and Agile practices had to be used rather than the incumbent document-centricwaterfall processes. This was very much a tactical Agile adoption. Failure was not an option andthe focus was on effective delivery rather than best practice. The project was a high profilesuccess in a very short time scale. The delivery date was met, to the hour. The team had provedthat a number of Agile techniques were highly beneficial and instilled confidence throughout thegroup that more comprehensive adoption was not only possible but desirable.3. The post launch doubts and scaling upAfter the initial euphoria of launch there were doubts expressed by senior members of themanagement team. There were concerns that not all of the old practices should have beendiscarded. Of particular concern was the lack of accessible documentation to allow maintenanceof the platform, especially if the development team was cycled. This resulted in pressure to revertto some of the original document centric processes.A victim of their own success, the team was now required to deliver more features to the samehigh levels of quality in the same aggressive time-scales. Given increasing scope and fixeddelivery dates the only solution was to increase headcount. The team was grown andreorganized into two separate groups with different functional responsibilities in the sameplatform. The technical architect retained his position across the team.The two groups were seated in different locations. Other than an hour long weekly team meetingthere was increasingly little interaction between the two groups. This led to the creation of siloswhere developers in one group knew very little about what was happening in the other. 5
  • 6. The new organization began to deliver quickly and was generally viewed as a success butinternally several disturbing issues were surfacing:  Code style was diverging. It was very easy to see which team had produced any one piece of code as they were radically different.  Common implementation patterns that had been very well understood were not being applied consistently. This led to a number of situations where the application had previously been predictable now behaving in an unpredictable and inconsistent fashion.  Technical debt was increasing. A key development principle was that the code base should be under constant rationalization to remove duplication and redundancy and increase reuse and consistency. This principle allowed the team to build fast, prove or disprove a feature and then refactor to pay back the technical debt. A technical backlog was maintained and tasks were regularly executed from this backlog. The net effect should have been a reduction in lines of source but analysis showed that as quickly as code was being refined, new code was being created. Code was still being produced quickly but the debt was not being repaid. The team was moving from a proactive refactoring regime into constant firefighting mode with decreasing feature delivery. During this period the architect was made less effective by two critical factors: o The architect was on the critical path for code delivery on one of the projects with the same expected ideal engineering hours capacity as any developer. o The architects remit was well understood but the mechanisms by which that remit would be achieved were not. This was the one of the traits of the conventional ivory tower architect: responsibility with no clear mechanism of control.4. Redefining the approachThe technical architect, who had been aware of these issues for several months but had beenunable to correct them, not least because of his own development commitments, determined thatthe situation required immediate and fundamental intervention. At this point external eventsrequired the teams to be reorganized into a number of different projects.The technical architect took this opportunity to reorganize technical governance. The new regimewould allow scaling of development capacity through delegation and empowerment. To ensurequality and consistency the regime would gather and analyse empirical evidence. The architectdetermined that it was impossible to maintain the commitments of being a full time developer andfulfill the technical architects remit.New techniques minimized the architects isolation from the implementation, without theunachievable requirement that the architect write key code modules.The following sections describe some of the main techniques employed in this new technicalgovernance regime which kept the architect out of the ivory tower. 6
  • 7. 4.1. Reflecting on code structureDuring the initial, problematic, scaling up of the team, development patterns and priorities hadbeen communicated. These were not always followed. In the new approach, after communicatingthe intent, the realization was evaluated for compliance. This took the form of detailed codereviews during the second iteration of the new projects as the body of code began to increase.On a clean workstation, using only the instructions on the wiki, the architect built a developmentenvironment. This included configuring the Eclipse IDE and Maven as well as checking out codeand setting up development application server instances. This was an essential first test of thestability and accessibility of the code base.The architect used a combination of Eclipses powerful code navigation tools and the acceptanceand unit tests to traverse the application. After identifying the classes involved in particular usergoals, a UML tool reverse engineered the code into a set of class diagrams. The architect usedEclipse and the UML tool to determine the associations between the implementation classes andtheir tests. The architect then examined the implementation of the unit tests and made briefpasses of the code to determine the responsibilities of each class. This exercise indicatedwhether standard patterns and agreed libraries were in use. Importantly it articulated the classcohesion and structure.Issues were identified around encapsulation and cohesion. Anti-patterns in test classes whichindicated issues in the implementation were noted and verified. The exercise produced a list ofissues to be corrected. The architect annotated the code in several places with FIXME andTODO and finally produced a UML class diagram with notes showing the class structure in use.This was added to the wiki. The exercise formed the basis for several improvement points at thenext retrospective and allowed the architect to provide positive feedback on the implementationbased on real evidence.This exercise had several positive outcomes:  The architects confidence that the team was following the correct and consistent set of patterns was firmly established. The architect also gained valuable familiarity with the code base. The issues that were spotted were easy to correct at this stage of the project. If left they may well have spawned a large number of similar features which would have increased the technical debt.  The developers confidence was boosted. They were now sure that they were interpreting the development guidelines correctly and had been publicly credited as such. The next retrospective recorded that the developers regarded the code review as being one of the positive features of the sprint. The architect going through code leaving TODO annotations etc. increased the sense of common code ownership. 7
  • 8. It made everybody more aware that the source was not an opaque artefact whose functionality was the only facet that would be observed.One problem as the code base increased was choosing which part of the application to inspect.One technique that proved effective was simply to conduct an exercise in the retrospective whereeach developer named their most complex or cleverest code module. These modules becamecandidates for detailed inspection.This mechanism of code review did require a significant investment in time. These reviews wereonly conducted a handful of times over several months. The prohibitive cost of these detailedcode reviews meant that more commonly developers were invited to use a whiteboard to talk thearchitect and a number of their peers through the interactions and class structure of a particularsection of the code. The objective was much the same as the detailed code inspection but alsoserved to educate a wider audience. Whilst it was of comparable in cost to the project in manhours the cost to any one individual, critically the architect was reduced. E.g. a white-boardsession would require two hours preparation by a developer and then one only hour forattendance from the architect, two other developers and the developer presenting. The cost is sixhours to the project but only one hour is taken from the architect’s diary. A more effective butcostlier code inspection might easily cost six hours of the architects time.White-board sessions were less useful than code inspection. They did not bring the architect andother developers into close contact with the actual code. It often led to a level of abstraction(consciously or not) being introduced by the presenter in order to communicate with theaudience. Occasionally it appeared to reduce the sense of common code ownership as oneindividual became the recognized expert.4.2. Providing direction and rigorous checkpointsThe architect created a Development Principles wiki page which was then presented to the teamin an interactive session. The principles were deliberately not generic points that could beuniversally applied on any project. Instead, these principles were derived from the best workingpractices used on the T-Mobile portal application. They were very specific and easy to apply. Theprinciples covered a wide range of topics from TDD and patterns for concurrency to policiesregarding the team’s attitude to broken builds. They also contained sections that related tocommon functional requirements such as error handling.Reviews and retrospectives supported the view that these principles had a positive effectencouraging a consistent approach.In keeping with the approach of gathering empirical evidence over reliance on documentation,the Development Principles were supported by an audit driven by an Architecture Checklist. 8
  • 9. Like the Developer Principles the Architecture Checklist was developed specifically for this suiteof applications. The temptation to try and make a generic tool which could be widely reused wasresisted.The audit of the system using the checklist was performed by the architect and technical leadpaired at a workstation. The code was checked out clean and the IDE and test framework wereused to check various points. In previous projects the author had experienced audit exercisesdriven by a review of design documentation followed by an interview. This required overly timeconsuming preparation, was stressful and less effective than inspecting the code and runningtests.Since the check list was developed for this application suite most points were pertinent. Eachcheck was phrased as a question where a given response would sometimes indicate that a moredetailed section was applicable. Not every question was answerable by a simple yes or no;instead where appropriate the reviewers recorded a written answer. This formed part of thedocumentation and most importantly stimulated deeper inspection.The audit exposed the architect and technical lead (who may or may not have been a seniordeveloper depending on the project) to the code. It was not a fool proof tool and obviously did notdetect all errors. It did expose issues that would have been show-stoppers later in the applicationlifecycle. E.g. an integration module was found to report a network connectivity error to theoperators in exactly the same way as an unexpected response from an external system. Theseerrors required different escalation routes (the former to the network team, the latter to the ownerof the integrated system). This was stipulated by the Development Principles but had beenmissed during development. The audit picked up these sorts of issues which previously had onlybeen uncovered in UAT or production.The cost of the audit was high. It was expensive to develop and maintain and required significantinput from project members whose time was heavily in demand. Scheduling was difficult andaudits were often delayed, which increased risk to the project. The audits were enormouslybeneficial and fully justified their high cost. They provided valuable empirical evidence andreduced the architects isolation from the implementation.4.3. Structuring the application architecture to promote good governanceIt was found that restructuring the application architecture was a contentious but effective tool toimprove technical governance.The application was designed from inception with a clear modular structure with loose coupling.Events had demonstrated that it was still possible to build components that violatedencapsulation by the corruption of shared services or simply by consuming all the CPU ormemory allocated. 9
  • 10. When the new projects were initiated the assumption was that they would all be extending theexisting application. The architect determined that this made the technical governance moredifficult. Towards the end of the first iteration he proposed a departure from this architecture. Themonolith would be replaced several discrete applications. Where the same code was required inmore than one platform this was moved into shared libraries (distributed and controlled viaMaven) which individual applications could branch if required.This move had a significant positive effect. The teams were decoupled in the same way as theirapplications. The silos that had been in effect previously were recreated but with clean interfaceswhich could be easily policed. Developers now had freedom to innovate rather than a license tointerfere and disrupt.Although their deployment workload had been increased, the operations team was supportivebecause they were given better performance testing guarantees.One of the failures late in 2008 had been caused by a presentation layer module consumingunacceptable levels of CPU capacity. Since all modules ran in the same container it took over aweek of repeated tests to ascertain that the complex integration modules, obvious candidates forextreme CPU use, were not at fault. The updated architecture allowed each component to beload tested in isolation. This meant that issues were identified with fewer test cycles.Simplification and encapsulation of the implementation directly led to more effective architecturalgovernance without imposing onerous processes. Although the initial emotional response to thischange was that it would be very costly, in retrospect, even though it was initiated in the seconditeration it still only required an additional ten days of development time. It saved many times thateffort by removing the requirement to regression test alone.4.4. Key measurement tool: testingThe technical architect had always placed a high value on a test first strategy and the adoption ofTDD at T-Mobile was the subject of an Agile 2008 Experience Report [3]. All projects had areasonable unit test coverage (60% lowest to 85% highest). Unit tests were written by and weremostly for the benefit of the developers.A second class of tests, labelled acceptance tests, were closely aligned with the user goals of thesystem and were intended to be developed in conjunction with the proxies for the businessstakeholders (organizational issues precluded the direct involvement of the stakeholdersthemselves).On some projects resource constraints meant that the acceptance tests were often created bythe developers without the involvement of other participants. Whilst these tests still hadsignificant value, an opportunity for the architect and proxy stakeholders to verify that the systemwas fit for purpose as they understood it was missed. As the tests were developed solely byengineers the technical complexity of the code inhibited comprehension by proxy stakeholders. 10
  • 11. To mitigate against the above issues the architect initiated the development of a new class oftests, referred to as use case tests, which ran against the application fully deployed. These testswere supported by a simple framework which aimed to make the tests themselves resemble thelanguage of the interface specifications, i.e. the tests were expressed in a language that thestakeholder proxies could understand.These tests became a powerful tool for measuring completeness against functionalrequirements. The construction of this test suite highlighted several areas where theimplementation had diverged from the published API. These tests also provided a seed into thecreation of load tests (using JMeter).The technical architect helped construct and run these tests rather than relying on a report fromothers. This practice was prioritized as another mechanism to reduce the distance between thearchitect and the implementation [1].Definition of load testing profiles (i.e. agreeing what constituted 100% load), detailed review andcoordination of load test execution were key responsibilities of the architect. The cost of theseactivities was extremely high but entirely justified by the direct exposure it gave the architect tothe non-functional aspects of the system. These aspects are fundamental in delivering thearchitectural remit. It was found that the architect and technical lead would be forced toconcentrate solely on load testing for long periods. This came at the cost of ignoring thedemands of the other projects during these times. It was a significant issue if these load testsoccurred at the same time as other critical activities (such as retrospectives or sprint planning) forother projects.JMeter and use case test execution gave the technical architect a high level of confidence thatthe applications were fit for purpose based on empirical evidence and real experience rather thandocumentation.4.5. Documentation that is good enoughIn keeping with Agile values, the technical architect was determined not to expend valuable effortproducing documentation with no clear purpose when that effort could be better used to bringdelivery closer. At the same time the architect wanted to ensure that where documentation wasgenuinely required it was fit for purpose.One project delivered a set of web services. A comprehensive, example based, API specificationwas produced. This document was as formal as any document delivered by waterfall projects atthe client. This document was identified as being critical to success and therefore justified its highcost in man hours to write and review.Previously a design document for each module had been mandated. This rule was discarded.Instead, key areas were identified by the architect or the team as being important or complexenough to justify some form of design review and capture. White board sessions were led by theappropriate developer. 11
  • 12. These were captured using digital cameras and uploaded to the wiki along with a brief summaryof any conclusions or activities to complete. Where an area was identified as particularlyimportant the architect had formal UML diagram production added to the sprint backlog. Thisensured key documentation was completed, its cost was visible and that cost was not absorbedinto the development activity. These documentation tasks had specific goals, e.g. communicatethe lifecycle of an object through a state diagram such that the design can be verified against usecases. The UML diagrams were held in a single, source controlled, highly accessible UMLrepository.Given the clients history of a document centric process the new approach to documentation wasalways going to be contentious. This was especially true when the development process hadsome sort of interaction with the wider organization. A security audit was performed severalmonths into one projects life by an external group who had been informed that they were dealingwith an Agile team. Due to some inter-programme communication issues, they were onlysupplied with a couple of power point slides. Thismet all their preconceptions of Agile. The auditors were surprised when the architect was able tosupply on demand a number of succinct and appropriate documents. These were generated fromthe UML repository or copied from the wiki but were exported into a company standard documentrepository to comply with versioning and accessibility rules. This demonstrated to the securityauditors that the project was as rigorous as any of its waterfall peers.4.6. DelegationThere is always going to be a point where it is impossible to achieve any more developmentthroughput without adding more people to the equation. It is the familiar pattern of horizontalscalability always outperforming vertical scalability at some point.Agile projects empower developers. Empowerment requires delegation. To be able to delegatetasks you need to have a team which is fit for purpose [4]. As part of the clients rigorousselection procedure the architect performed a technical assessment of all new joiners with adevelopment remit. In the course of his career the architect had observed many interviews beingconcluded using emotional rather than empirical methods.The technical architect developed a set of case study driven interviews customized for the T-Mobile project. This meant that the candidate could be exercised using the projects workingpractices and technologies. Interviewees were expected to run white board design sessionsbased on common problems the project faced or use TDD using Maven and Eclipse. Theinterviews were designed to give candidates a vehicle to demonstrate their abilities rather thantrying to trip them up. 12
  • 13. It was the architects opinion that this was a critical factor in assembling a strong team whosepractical ability had been proven before they started the project. This enabled a high degree ofimmediate delegation and empowerment. The technical architect was keen to allow developersto take the lead in producing the solution with minimal guidance. This allowed best practices tobe developed by individuals and then adopted across the teams.Ivory tower architects often concentrate on technology rather than people. This stops themdelegating and therefore impedes the development scalability. 13
  • 14. 5. Conclusions  An architect must reduce their isolation from the implementation by being closely involved with high value technical activities such as load testing and code reviews.  An architect can become isolated from parts of the system if they cannot find time to cover all areas because they are attempting to also be a full time developer.  Relying solely on documentation as a tool for technical governance is not an effective strategy but there are documents (which may be on the wiki or in the UML repository) which are essential to the architect.  Learning to employ ‘soft’ skills becomes as important as technical acumen because without excellent communication and effective delegation you cannot scale up.  Automated, well written tests are the architect’s best mechanism to gather empirical evidence of compliance with governance and fitness for purpose.  The best techniques cannot be applied every time because of cost. Choose the most important areas for the high cost activities and use less effective but cheaper methods for others.  Activities that made the developers aware that the architect was observing the source increased the perception of common code ownership and invigorated developers to maintain high levels of code quality.6. References[1] V. Hazrati, The Shiny New Agile Architect, 2008[2] J. McGovern, A Practical Guide to Enterprise Architecture, 2003[3] A. Rendell, Pragmatic and effective Test Driven Development, 2008[4] S McConnell, Rapid Development, 1996 14
  • 15. 7. Valtech Contact DetailsValtech Ltd.120 Aldersgate Street,London, EC1A 207 014 0800 15